April 26, 2012

(Note: You contributed to this survey if you've been taking the little polls in the sidebar here. My blog was counted as "conservative" because I'm in the Blogads e Conservative Blog Advertising Network.)

Althouse is the only blogger, there are no guest bloggers or co-contributors; she's only ever voted for a Republican candidate for anything once or twice; she's voted for dozens of Democrats; she voted for Obama; and as far as I know she supports abortion rights and affirmative action.

But this is a conservative blog.

That's interesting. If liberals/progressives are going to make themselves into such an exclusive club that they won't even claim a center/left classical liberal like Althouse, and they're going to cede that cohort to conservatives, the left is going to have a very hard time mustering a majority for a very long time.

"That's interesting. If liberals/progressives are going to make themselves into such an exclusive club that they won't even claim a center/left classical liberal like Althouse, and they're going to cede that cohort to conservatives, the left is going to have a very hard time mustering a majority for a very long time."

You want to know how I got categorized as conservative? In the early days of blogging, conservatives linked to stuff of mine that they liked and I developed a readership from that. Liberals would find things they didn't like and among liberals I got the reputation as toxic.

It was the old looking for converts vs. looking for heretics dynamic.

That started in 2004.

The main un-liberal thing about me that made me a heretic was supporting Bush's war efforts.

Later, I also voted for Bush.

That was basically it.

I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans during the 8.5 years of this blog.

I voted for Scott Walker. That demonizes me around Madison, of course.

The main un-liberal thing about me that made me a heretic was supporting Bush's war efforts.

Later, I also voted for Bush.

That was basically it.

Bizarrely, the closed-minded conservatives didn't seek to burn the heretic for voting for Obama. You did what you did and, honestly, it really isn't our business anyways. And you go off on tangents that conservatives don't like a lot --- we just don't dwell on them INCESSANTLY. I guess we need to be more tolerant in order to really, really hate you.

We will accuse you of falling for a scam, but hey, lots of people do that.

It occurs to me that maybe the reason AA's still #1 in the traffic ratings is that she's got a happy coincidence of regulars with jobs that allow multiple (ie, a ridiculous number of) page views a day. None of my previous jobs would have allowed me to do this.

Although, truth be told, it's hard to enter blog comments when you're on stage with nothing on but a bow tie.

"Ya see. ya see, conservatives don't care about the environment," is the standard liberal response to the conservatives' answer to question #1. The fact that a higher percentage of conservatives own real estate than do liberals and a far higher percent own large tracts of land - all those reactionary ranchers and farmers - and CARE about their land because it's theirs - so selfish of them - why that's just an inconvenient fact to be ignored.

Althouse is down with the entire social justice agenda which puts her, with every other liberal, at loggerheads with equal justice. The fact that she occasionally calls out a fellow liberal for thuggish behavior or naked lying doesn't make her a conservative.

One thing you can do, if you are confused as to why Althouse is considered a conservative blog, is read the comments on any trafficked thread. There's little that sets the comments apart, on the whole, from those of blog or comment-enabled website that all would agree are right wing. True, you can take liberal positions in the comments without getting banned, but you're in a very conspicuous minority.

So, is this commenter dynamic because, in Althouse's words, because she supported Bush's wars and voted for Bush (and also hears Walker)?. "That's basically it," she writes, as though it was the silliest thing ever that hers would be categorized as a conservative blog..

Heh. Not to be overly contrarian, but it might be worth asking whether the content of the actual blog posts and positions taken by the blogger, might have something to o with the ideological makeup of the comment boards. Who she syays she voted for is less important, perhaps, than this content.

This reinforces my theory that a liberal must be above all a liberal. Liberal ideology comes before any minority status, religious belief, personal feelings, humor, conscience or common sense. All things that do not advance the liberal cause are subject to going under the bus. That includes anything that was said previously by any liberal for any reason. See Black/white/Hispanic Zimmerman. This is done with eyes wide open and fully accepted by the obedient sacrificial lambs under the bus.

Of course that is ridiculous. There are not "two" major "types" of people in the world.

The number of political ideologies are far more then two. Americans tend to see in this binary because alliances are formed for two large political parties.

Althouse is a good example of the mixes of "ideologies." She is quite conservative economically. Not an FDR supporter if alive and voting in the 1930s.

She is a libertarian on free speech, religious, gun, sexual and gender issues.

She is not a libertarian when it comes to national security issues. In this case she is moderately comfortable with the power of the national state.

She is academically interested in state rights. Not sure yet where she stands on voting rights or property rights vs. equal access rights.

She seems to have a strong personal distate for young people or academics engaging in dogmatic "leftist" stuff. Probably comes from hanging out in leftist coffee shops and academic campuses for the last 30 years.

The poll proves that a significant number of liberals are credulous fools and, as a result, dangerous morons.

So foolish as to think Althouse 'conservative'. Hells bells, she's the most radical thinker in Madison WI. Madison's lefties haven't changed their dogma t-shirt since 1967. It's threadbare and stinks, but they hold to it like scripture. Shit, they're so conservative they still follow failed theories from 1848, never changing a jot or tittle.

Yes but which people talk about it versus which people actually try to do something about it in terms of their personal behavior. It’s a little bit like people who spend their time talking about how much they care about the poor and the downtrodden versus those that spend their time helping them in a constructive manner.

I don’t consider “Statism” or “Neoliberalism” to be “conservative” ideologies but the remaining three are entirely compatible for the most part.

I don't see how "statism" can be construed as conservative, at least as the term is used most commonly (overwhelmingly?) on this blog. Neoliberalism, on the other hand, is another name for Austrian economics. Deregulation, free-market approaches, etc. That would certainly fall under "conservative".

Canuck, as usual you provide some nice thoughtful comments here. Your comments I think exemplify the danger of pigeonholing people into one dimensional labels. However, many of us DO invite the pigeoholing, or at last the categorical inclusion, based on what we say or do.

In one of the comments on this thread you write:

"These are all different ideologies. Many of them contradict each other. And many are seen as "conservative." [1]Social conservatism; [2]Economic conservatism; [3]Neoliberalism; [4]Statism; [5]Libertarianism"

So based on what I have seen on this blog over the last couple of years, I would say Althouse readily invites inclusion among, if not outright emblemization of, ideologies #2,3, &5. Her comment boards also show fidelity to each of these, meanwhile also showing lots of dollops of #1.

So, why would we be at all shocked to see her blog categorized as conservative? Just look at the freakin blog posts and comments. Who cares who she claims to have voted for?

But anyway, to engage your post on its own terms, I offer some semantic considerations that I think are important:

1)you forgot the once ubiquitous term "Neoconservative" to signify military adventurism--a phenomenon also roundly applauded by this blog and its commenters)

2)In its actual usage "Neoliberal" is a synonym for "Global Corporatist." And

2a)sadly in its current form, "economic conservative" for the most part is indistinguishable from Global Corporatism.

2b)For all sorts of practical purposes and from the standpoint of many (though by no means all) liberals, global Corporatism and Statism exist on the same ersatz moral and political plane.

Thank you Scott M, for some reason I thought that “Neoliberalism” was a reference to Keynesian economic theory but it’s been over a decade since I took Macroeconomics in college so my memory isn’t as reliable as it used to be. Or possibly the meaning of the term has changed since then ;)

In Canada the Liberal party is often derided by the NDPs (leftist party) for being "neoliberalist."

In Canada the Liberals are not the leftist party, but center left. Liberalism isn't necessarily leftist. Depends on what you are talking about. When I heard the word liberal I think classical economics.

Most people believe in "statism" to some extent. It's the opposite of anarchism--the power of the state.

I've been beating this drum for years now. The further left you get, the more government involvement in your life up to the extreme, totalitarianism. The further right you go, the less government involvement in your life until there literally is no government, ie, anarchy.

I had someone tell me that nihilism is even further right of anarchy, but I haven't looked into that yet (it just happened a couple of days ago). Prima facie I don't think it aptly describes a political mode well enough to be included in the same spectrum, but, as I said, it bears some looking into.

One the many great strengths of Christian belief is that it categorizes nihilism as a sin, since nihilism is the expression of despair. There are no such checks on the secular, who can express their despair in everything, up to and including murder, and call it cathartic.

dies irae is a very important word for its high crossword giveability quotient. Potent. Knowing it provides a wedge into a gnarly corner and opens the whole thing up. I'm delighted to see it, finally look at it meaning, and hear it on Wikipedia. I thought it was a German nationalistic song or something.

A similar thing came up a few days ago, Elie Wiesel. I know of him only from the world of crossword puzzles. The smackdown he delivered was excellent and now I finally get it.

"I've been beating this drum for years now. The further left you get, the more government involvement in your life up to the extreme, totalitarianism. The further right you go, the less government involvement in your life until there literally is no government, ie, anarchy."

I don't think a 2-dimensional binary model works for understanding political tendencies. Anarchists are usually classified as leftists.

I sympathize with Ann. I've been called everything from a raging conservative to a flaming socialist, to a libertarian, depending on the topic at hand.

I differ from libertarians in that I see the State, at times, as the most practical means of pooling resources and taking care of various needs in society. I am not ideologically opposed to any and all State involvement other than enforcing laws and contracts, and protection.

I differ from the Left in that despite those practical considerations, I do not view the State as an intrinsically benign or even neutral actor. When the people allow the State to get involved in something, whether it be welfare or healthcare or old age financial support, both the limits and the extent of that action need to be clearly and very narrowly defined. Because the State will always seek to exceed its current power and boundaries. Always.

I don't mind those who argue that we the people ought to transact with the State to accomplish various good. I do have a problem with those who blithely refuse to even recognize that a transaction is, in fact, occurring - that we are trading X for Y, a bit of absolute freedom for a societal benefit.

You have to recognize that a transaction is taking place before a sane discussion can be had as to whether the tradeoff is beneficial, and the gain worth it, or if this price in this circumstance is too dear. Most of today's left drifts about in utopian thinking that completely ignores the transactional nature of The People vs. The State, of liberty vs. control.

So while I part with libertarians and strict conservatives on whether sometimes the bargain ought to be made, today's left, with their eagerness to tout the benefit and ignore the price, are not the ones I want at that negotiating table on my behalf.